On Saturday, Jul 26, 2003, at 12:12 US/Eastern, Dan Brickley wrote:
> * Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org> [2003-07-25 20:51-0400]
>>
>>
>> The nearest cyc term is (from previous discussions)
>> cyc:ConceptualWork. This something abstract, not concrete.
>>
>> The word "documents" has been used on this thread because it is
>> shorter.
>
>> From previous discussion, am I right in saying you'd count
> "The Bible", "Hamlet" etc as conceptual works; but foaf:Document (the
> RDF class) or cyc:ConceptualWork (another RDF class) as not being
> conceptual works.
>
> If so, what is it about the former that makes them more 'conceptual'?
1. I point you to a whole ontology - check the cyc classifications.
2. Nothing. They are all conceptual. Only things which convey
information
are works, in the sense of opus, oeuvre, something which decreases
entropy
and hence takes energy to create.
> Are you claiming that RDF classes are purely mathematic constructs,
> discovered rather than created?
I make no untestable statements about whether they are discovered or
created.
But I do distinguish them from for example an RDF schema, which has
content
and can be represented in RDF/XML or N3, can be copyright, etc etc.
> I ask because I have several RDF implementations which depend on
> classes
> being allowed in httpRange...
Could you manage a transition to one in which you use a hash, please?
It is going to be easier to fix it now than later.
> Dan